You still ecoes de bankers argument of risk for inflation, if you have a public bank solution. Such a solution would drive a spear into the hearts of bankers and cause great class struggles, since it challenges the bankers “right” to make profits from debt.

There would be no state debt and no interest to pay from the state to bankers with tax money and the state could create just exactly the money needed for its projekts in the real economy and thus cause no inflation.

Such a solution does not inhibit the crises in capitalist economies, but it would sharpen classs struggles än erase private banks and make the fight for socialism much easier.

]]>
By: kasacks altenpflege https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/vollgeld-and-the-sovereign-money-initiative/#comment-139839
Mon, 05 Nov 2018 08:13:36 +0000http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/?p=15014#comment-139839Interessanter Artikel.
]]>
By: Frank Nilsson https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/vollgeld-and-the-sovereign-money-initiative/#comment-125845
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 12:51:41 +0000http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/?p=15014#comment-125845Bad research Michael!
The problem with todays banking system is not inefficiency. It is the fact that private banks can make money out of nothing and then make a profit out of it. That is in fact a very essentiell part of the capitalist system.

Abe Lincoln tried the idea with great success when printing the greenback dollars, and it did not lead to inflaton. On the contrary it enabled him to invest in railways and telegraph and to win the war.
The Confederate States borrowed from the banks and were totally broke and in debt when the war was over.

]]>
By: Alex https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/vollgeld-and-the-sovereign-money-initiative/#comment-124098
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:26:41 +0000http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/?p=15014#comment-124098“However, this has come at the expense of adding to the already high debt burden.”
Yes but they owe this debt to themselves, this is not a real problem, in any case, monetary policy could be done without any debt whatsoever.

By the way, I think in the case of China, even Michael Roberts would agree that “printing money” works. It’s only in capitalist society where the majority of corporations is in private hands, that he thinks money “printing” leads to stagflation.

My question is, what is the theoretical justification for this belief. Since the rate of profit can and is falling, why can’t it go into negative territory? Why can capitalists coordinate their reaction to “money printing” by raising prices without raising productivity (stagflation) if they can’t coordinate their behavior in the case of technical innovation, which also leads to a fall in the profit rate?
If capitalist could switch from competition to coordination so easily, why is there a falling rate of profit in the first place? In that case, wouldn’t it be better for capitalists to never allow for any kind of technological progress (higher organic composition of capital), since the less labour they hire, the less exploitation, the less profit?

Isn’t this the basic contradiction of capitalism? Capitalists -because of competition- have to be efficient, keep costs down, so they always try to produce with less workers, on the other hand they need workers to exploit, because that’s where profits come from. They can’t live with them, can’t live without them. This is not just a conflict, but a real contradiction at the heart of capitalism. That’s why the basic tendency of capitalism is always to reach a final utopia where there is production with no labour input at all, but the moment this point is reached, capitalist will realize that their profits have also vanished.

Now, if capitalist could just abolish competition, they could successfully prohibit any technological progress and keep the profit rate always at a maximum. We would forever stay in a economy with a very low organic composition of capital.

Michael Roberts seems to be saying capitalist can’t do that, but the moment somebody “prints” some money, suddenly they can.

]]>
By: ucanbpolitical https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/vollgeld-and-the-sovereign-money-initiative/#comment-123941
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:29:15 +0000http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/?p=15014#comment-123941This is what the Chinese government did in 2016. It droned money into the economy through additional credit. However, this has come at the expense of adding to the already high debt burden.
]]>
By: Alex https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/vollgeld-and-the-sovereign-money-initiative/#comment-123898
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 17:53:08 +0000http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/?p=15014#comment-123898The last sentence should end:
„…would have no effect?“
]]>
By: Alex https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/vollgeld-and-the-sovereign-money-initiative/#comment-123897
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 17:49:51 +0000http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/?p=15014#comment-123897I realy don‘t understand the Marxist argument against helicopter money (printing money and sending it to each and every citizen). Crisis of profitability get cured according to Marx by a destruction of capital. If just enough capital values get destroyed, new production of capital will be profitable again.

Why can‘t the destruction of capital values be realized through destruction of money-capital instead of real capital? If the central bank could create 5% inflation (that is a rate of return of -5% in real terms, destroying 5% of money-capital each year), investments with a rate of return above -5% in real terms, would be more „profitable“ than hoarding money. Hoarding 100€ leaves 95€ in real terms after one year, investing with a real return of -2% leaves 98€.

Why is hoarding money a very important part in Marx‘ conception of capitalism, if making costless hoarding impossible, wouldn’t have no effect?